5 ms·

This is a risky bet. If Putin just wants some more land, then you can probably throw more weapons at the conflict and he will eventually realize that it is not

This is a risky bet. If Putin just wants some more land, then you can probably throw more weapons at the conflict and he will eventually realize that it is not worth the trouble and give up. If the opposing view is correct, if this is not about some additional land but about keeping NATO out of Ukraine, then throwing more weapons at the conflict, cornering Putin, is probably the fastest path towards total destruction of Ukraine, including the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons.

H8crilA 4y ago
Russia is throwing everything already, we've even seen T-55 taken out of what could be called museums. You should see some pictures from the front, it is Verdun all over again. This is a total war that has to conclude.
- trollski 4y ago
  [dead]
- danbruc 4y ago
  I have admittedly not followed the developments in the last weeks and months in too much detail, but I would still say this is for the most part a war between two armies. But Russia could turn against the country, target every power and water plant, hospital, fuel storage, industrial plant, dam, port, ... They could go non-conventional, they could go nuclear. And how should it conclude? Who should give up what?
  - H8crilA 4y ago
    They already do all those things except nukes. I cannot emphasise this enough, they already do everything that they can. Conclusion is return to at least Feb2022 borders, preferably 1991 borders. We have the international law for a reason, everyone agreed to this law (including the USSR) after WW2.
    - danbruc 4y ago
      Okay, let's not argue about the extend of the war, I am still not convinced that it could not get a lot worse, but if it already is as bad as it can get, that would - in a certain way - be a good thing as it can not get any worse, at least besides lasting longer. This leaves the question, is your proposed end acceptable for Putin? In essence your are saying, if I do not misunderstand you, undo the last year, at the very least. What makes you believe that Putin would judge the situation differently this time, i.e. that this situation does not warrant the invasion of Ukraine?
      - jcranmer 4y ago
        The reality of the situation is that Russia does not have the military capability to achieve its political aims. This has been clear to every observer since about March. Yet Russia has not attempted to moderate its political aims to reflect its actual military capabilities, and I think it is unwise for Ukraine or anybody else to humor Russia by considering these unrealistic aims as a viable starting position for negotiations. Sadly, given the delusions of Putin, this means having to prolong the war in Ukraine. Delivering yet more decisive defeats of the Russian military is likely to be the only thing that can shock him into realizing that what he wants is unachievable and he has to adjust his aims to reality.
        danbruc 4y ago
        [...] Russia does not have the military capability to achieve its political aims. What do you think this political aims are?
        H8crilA 4y ago
        In Ukraine it was specifically a change to the political regime, which didn't work. Don't know what the current aim is, could be simply a suppression of Ukraine through continuous damage so that it slowly becomes another Syria over the next decade. There's also damaging "the evil West" in whatever way is possible, mostly by subverting the democratic processes. They did help with a few political movements (help, not necessarily start), we have evidence for that on both sides of the Atlantic. This goal probably didn't change.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
zmgsabst 4y ago
[flagged]
- smcl 4y ago
  So it's weird, you've tangled a bunch of stuff together by simplifying it as "Russia" wanting to do something, it's not that simple. From what I can see it's driven from what Putin wants, which is clearly not to "protect" anyone from anything but rather to conquer and control Ukraine. I'm sure he'd be willing to sacrifice many lives to achieve this though. As for the people, well the spike in young Russian men escaping the country to avoid being mobilised suggests that the people aren't particularly keen for any fight, brutal or otherwise. I've seen a few interviews with people on the street in Russia where some have expressed support for the war and for mobilisation generally, but that's usually from people who wouldn't be mobilised (older people or women). Those who would be eligible for being mobilised appear to be relatively evenly split between 1. "I don't think about politics" (weirdly common, suspect it's a euphemism for "I don't want to be critical of Putin on camera") 2. "I'm for the war. What, me getting mobilised? It won't happen" 3. "I'm against this, it's stupid, I'll leave if I'm mobilised". There's the odd True Believer, but I suspect they'd change their tune after a few weeks camping outside Bakhmut. So to return to what you said: > If Russia genuinely views this as a war to protect Russians from ethnic cleansing, they’ll fight brutally as long as they can. Well, the person in control doesn't see it that way and the people he'd send in to fight don't seem too enthusiastic to jump into such a brutal fight. It remains to be seen what this implies, however.
  - danbruc 4y ago
    [...] what Putin wants, [...] is [...] to conquer and control Ukraine. What evidence do we have for that? Because that is really important, if you get the goals wrong, you risk making very bad decisions about your response.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - smcl 4y ago

H8crilA 4y ago

Russia is throwing everything already, we've even seen T-55 taken out of what could be called museums. You should see some pictures from the front, it is Verdun all over again. This is a total war that has to conclude.

trollski 4y ago
[dead]
danbruc 4y ago
I have admittedly not followed the developments in the last weeks and months in too much detail, but I would still say this is for the most part a war between two armies. But Russia could turn against the country, target every power and water plant, hospital, fuel storage, industrial plant, dam, port, ... They could go non-conventional, they could go nuclear. And how should it conclude? Who should give up what?
- H8crilA 4y ago
  They already do all those things except nukes. I cannot emphasise this enough, they already do everything that they can. Conclusion is return to at least Feb2022 borders, preferably 1991 borders. We have the international law for a reason, everyone agreed to this law (including the USSR) after WW2.
  - danbruc 4y ago
    Okay, let's not argue about the extend of the war, I am still not convinced that it could not get a lot worse, but if it already is as bad as it can get, that would - in a certain way - be a good thing as it can not get any worse, at least besides lasting longer. This leaves the question, is your proposed end acceptable for Putin? In essence your are saying, if I do not misunderstand you, undo the last year, at the very least. What makes you believe that Putin would judge the situation differently this time, i.e. that this situation does not warrant the invasion of Ukraine?
    - jcranmer 4y ago
      The reality of the situation is that Russia does not have the military capability to achieve its political aims. This has been clear to every observer since about March. Yet Russia has not attempted to moderate its political aims to reflect its actual military capabilities, and I think it is unwise for Ukraine or anybody else to humor Russia by considering these unrealistic aims as a viable starting position for negotiations. Sadly, given the delusions of Putin, this means having to prolong the war in Ukraine. Delivering yet more decisive defeats of the Russian military is likely to be the only thing that can shock him into realizing that what he wants is unachievable and he has to adjust his aims to reality.
      - danbruc 4y ago
        [...] Russia does not have the military capability to achieve its political aims. What do you think this political aims are?
        H8crilA 4y ago
        In Ukraine it was specifically a change to the political regime, which didn't work. Don't know what the current aim is, could be simply a suppression of Ukraine through continuous damage so that it slowly becomes another Syria over the next decade. There's also damaging "the evil West" in whatever way is possible, mostly by subverting the democratic processes. They did help with a few political movements (help, not necessarily start), we have evidence for that on both sides of the Atlantic. This goal probably didn't change.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

zmgsabst 4y ago

[flagged]

smcl 4y ago
So it's weird, you've tangled a bunch of stuff together by simplifying it as "Russia" wanting to do something, it's not that simple. From what I can see it's driven from what Putin wants, which is clearly not to "protect" anyone from anything but rather to conquer and control Ukraine. I'm sure he'd be willing to sacrifice many lives to achieve this though. As for the people, well the spike in young Russian men escaping the country to avoid being mobilised suggests that the people aren't particularly keen for any fight, brutal or otherwise. I've seen a few interviews with people on the street in Russia where some have expressed support for the war and for mobilisation generally, but that's usually from people who wouldn't be mobilised (older people or women). Those who would be eligible for being mobilised appear to be relatively evenly split between 1. "I don't think about politics" (weirdly common, suspect it's a euphemism for "I don't want to be critical of Putin on camera") 2. "I'm for the war. What, me getting mobilised? It won't happen" 3. "I'm against this, it's stupid, I'll leave if I'm mobilised". There's the odd True Believer, but I suspect they'd change their tune after a few weeks camping outside Bakhmut. So to return to what you said: > If Russia genuinely views this as a war to protect Russians from ethnic cleansing, they’ll fight brutally as long as they can. Well, the person in control doesn't see it that way and the people he'd send in to fight don't seem too enthusiastic to jump into such a brutal fight. It remains to be seen what this implies, however.
- danbruc 4y ago
  [...] what Putin wants, [...] is [...] to conquer and control Ukraine. What evidence do we have for that? Because that is really important, if you get the goals wrong, you risk making very bad decisions about your response.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - smcl 4y ago